why are there no black people in 40k?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Bronzefists42**

r_squared wrote:
I think your mate could have had an argument if GW had sculpted goblins in kippahs. Otherwise I think he is talking out of his @rse.

I can almost see how someone could see goblins as racist, but I remember a really ancient WD comic (#98) shows the Gretchin as being parodies of white people (one dresses like Rambo, on talks in a very fake German accent with a somewhat suspicious looking mustache.)

Orks themselves are a mockery of white Imperialism, specifically soccer hooligans, 20th century Germany and to some extent Americans (I always interpreted early snake bites as mocking the way America and GB tried to steal aspects of Native American culture.)

**Wyzilla**

Bronzefists42 wrote:
r_squared wrote:
I think your mate could have had an argument if GW had sculpted goblins in kippahs. Otherwise I think he is talking out of his @rse.

I can almost see how someone could see goblins as racist, but I remember a really ancient WD comic (#98) shows the Gretchin as being parodies of white people (one dresses like Rambo, on talks in a very fake German accent with a somewhat suspicious looking mustache.)

Orks themselves are a mockery of white Imperialism, specifically soccer hooligans, 20th century Germany and to some extent Americans (I always interpreted early snake bites as mocking the way America and GB tried to steal aspects of Native American culture.)

Yeah, I think it's just a matter of cultural divide over the pond.

As a yank, I can see how Orks could potentially come off as an offensive, racist stereotype given their appearance and hyperbolic features.

**Bronzefists42**

Wyzilla wrote:
Bronzefists42 wrote:
r_squared wrote:
I think your mate could have had an argument if GW had sculpted goblins in kippahs. Otherwise I think he is talking out of his @rse.

I can almost see how someone could see goblins as racist, but I remember a really ancient WD comic (#98) shows the Gretchin as being parodies of white people (one dresses like Rambo, on talks in a very fake German accent with a somewhat suspicious looking mustache.)

Orks themselves are a mockery of white Imperialism, specifically soccer hooligans, 20th century Germany and to some extent Americans (I always interpreted early snake bites as mocking the way America and GB tried to steal aspects of Native American culture.)

Yeah, I think it's just a matter of cultural divide over the pond.

As a yank, I can see how Orks could potentially come off as an offensive, racist stereotype given their appearance and hyperbolic features.

They are definitely a satire of White imperialism.

They speak in a mixture of British and fake german (swapping C's with K's and have 'Kultur') (also not to offend but when someone says 'Imperialism' those will be the first two countries most people will think of)

Boyz wear clothing resembling WWI trench coats and carry German machine guns around.

Their lore involves infesting every nook and cranny of the universe and violently professing the superiority of Orkiness.

They seem like racist caricatures on a cursory glance but really insult racism.

**r_squared**

I think you would be hard pushed to convince anyone of the intrinsic racism of an established fantasy creature who has had it's fluff re-written to the extent that they are now a homicidal mushroom.

**ArbitorIan**

Bronzefists42 wrote:

They speak in a mixture of British and fake german (swapping C's with K's and have 'Kultur') (also not to offend but when someone says 'Imperialism' those will be the first two countries most people will think of)

Boyz wear clothing resembling WWI trench coats and carry German machine guns around.

I think the analogy to football hooligans nails it, and the comparisons to German are inaccurate (beyond a similarity between the ape-like nature of okra and certain ww1 era propaganda posters about 'the hun'). The 'stupid hooligan' stereotype has really deep roots in British culture.

Orks are a parody of a very British white, southern, working class machismo stereotype very much associated with 80s football hooligans. They speak in working class Estuary English (which people might interpret as 'cockney'), act with extreme aggression, and spell their words phonetically (which is probably the reason for Ork 'kultur' rather than an attempt to sound German). Also, generally in English, the oldest, shortest and most 'basic' words are the Saxon ones, which derive from the same root as German.

Football hooligans were a big thing in the eighties, and if you were a young, liberal, outsider arts graduate game developer in 1987, the conservative, racist, traditionally masculine 'yobs' would have been a group of people you'd be more than happy to make fun of. Look - they're brutish idiots, always using violence to solve things, speaking bad English and spelling badly! Comic relief!

.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Orks are Space Rednecks.

**ArbitorIan**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Orks are Space Rednecks.

Yeah, that's probably a close analogy in America. But the 'yob' stereotype in 80s Britain was in no way a 'rural' one - it's more 'proudly uneducated city-dweller' rather than 'stupid country folk'. Not sure that the equivalent is...

**Matthew**

I might have missed the point, but why would it be racist to have no black people? Maybe it just looks better to have pale-ish skin in a suit of power armour. And also, maybe there are no black Primarchs?

**Xenomancers**

epronovost wrote:
@Xenomancers and other interested in the subjejct

At the danger of high jacking the thread on another subject I would still reply. Your common sense is absolutely wrong in a fact analysis. Then again, this is a common misconception and an easily understood one. «Common sense» is usually very wrong for it’s a synonymous for preconception on any particular subject. It was «common sense» that the sun orbited around the Earth though it never was the case. Same things for big and solid cars being safer than smaller and softer ones while it’s the complete opposite. Even the incredible death rate of the 40K universe wars is probably much smaller than the death rate of industrial accident, disease caused by malnutrition, poor hygiene, toxic environment, etc. Armies are smaller in the grim futures due to starships deployment and battles. Napoleon had a larger army than the US army right now in pure fighting men, but its army was far weaker and capable of less. I was also only talking about the Cadians in particular. In the setting most planet are culturally and technologically very different from one another.

These are the reasons why women are actually more apt to be soldiers and why they are not. Sorry, I don't have all the complete reference but you can find them by yourself rather easily. Remember that these are generalities and you will always find exceptions of the opposite.

1) Women have a better balance and flexibility than men.

This gives them a distinct advantages in close-combat much superior to strength and size due to the fact that strength and size only matter if you fight in close combat in tight formations were movement is restricted (which hasn't been the case since Napoleon). In a loose formation, your opponent has the ability to sidestep you or simply recoil to avoid your powerful attacks and long reach and gain an advantage. You will never see such moves in combat sports employed at their fullest either, for they are systematically illegal because of the high risks of injury they create (blows at the back of the head a considered very dangerous). Of course, you need to train women in a different variety of martial art to be effective fighters. These are called «soft martial arts» like tai-chi, winchung, crane and mantis kung-fu, aikijutsu for example, use positioning, precision, balance and flexibility to be efficient. These martial arts were also mostly developed by women for self-defence and war and are all very deadly, fast and efficient. Of course, they are also a bit harder and longer to teach than «hard martial art» like English and French boxing, Brazilian jujitsu, wrestling or karate. Though, the former are still as efficient against an armored target compare to the later who becomes much less efficient. I suggest some reading on Chinese martial theory to see how different schools of martial arts teach and produce different results.

Better balance and flexibility allow women to navigate rough terrain faster and more importantly much more silently. Stealth is a central doctrine in modern warfare and one of the most important set of skills. Stealth confers the element of surprise, which is central in most military operation of infantry level.

2) Women are smaller and thinner than men.

This is also one of the reason why they are less strong and powerful, but as it has been demonstrated earlier, strength isn't an important factor past a certain level (which fit women meet rather easily). A smaller person makes a harder target and need less cover to hide herself. This is a significant advantage for almost all combat is made at a range of a hundred meters (sometimes much more) with personal fire-arms and taking cover the first step in any engagement. If you are smaller and more flexible, its easier to find good cover.

3) Women have sharper senses than men.

Women are less likely to need glasses and have a higher proportion of perfect vision. There even is some women who can see a fraction of the UV specter of light (no men has been found with such an ability yet). Eye sight is important to spot ambush but also for accuracy with fire-arm. Women hearing and sense of smell is also sharper which can be used to detect ambushes (the greatest danger in combat). Women experience less the syndrome of tunnel of vision than men in stressful condition (like combat). Though in fairness, men have better forward vision in those situation. But in combat outside of formation, danger can come from all side.

4) Women are more resilient to pain both physical and mental.

Women are notorious for their superior physical endurance to pain (about 20% more resistance), but this is completely pointless in war. An injury will still incapacitated her as much as a men. Though, this also makes them more resistant to shock danger (a real killer when it comes to combat injuries). This capacity is not significantly affected by pregnancy or childbirth like some unfounded rumours stated it in the past, but due to the level feminine sexual hormones (which have more than one role much like masculine sexual hormones) in a female body and a higher level of fat. Women are also much harder to torture due to that resistance and have proven multiple times that they make poor torture subject. The Nazis studied the subject a lot so did the regime of Paul Pot and even some torturer from Iraq and US agreed with that strongly. Women also produce a much higher level of the hormone responsible for attachment which makes them much more resilient to mental illness. This also help them to recover faster of trauma.

5) Women have a higher capacity for sustained attention.

An average men can keep intense concentration for about 30 minutes without pause, a women for about 45. Concentration is vital in combat for it allow you to stay attentive in patrols, sentry duties and in preparation of ambush were a small period of distraction can kill you. Combine that with sharper sense and greater ability for stealth and close combat and you see where I am going. This also make for better officer with more capacity to do remember lots of data and complex briefings.

6) Women can multitask more easily.

This is some of the most famous ability of women compare to men. The ability to divide efficiently your attention on different tasks is also very useful for a soldier this way you can listen to your officer while maintaining guard duty for example without loss of efficiency in either one. Multitasking is not exclusive to women, but it’s displayed more commonly amongst them.

7) Women form bonds faster than men.

This, in some setting, can be a problem but in a good system of training is a powerful tool. Women create bonds (positive or negative) faster than men and can sustain more. This is due to the higher level of the hormones linked to attachment in their blood. It creates a stronger sense of friendship, love or team in positive cases and more disgust, fear and hatred in negative ones. Well exploited, you make them hate your enemies and love their comrades and it's a recipe for an incredible fighting force. But in the wrong cases, you have a complete mess of rivaling spiteful females (seen that once and boy is it ugly!). In most cases, it also allow women to follow social standard more easily. That’s one of the reason why the fashion industry have such a pull on women but rather little on men for example. In a training and military environnement it improves discipline and efforts to conform to standards.

All taken into account, both men and women can make excellent soldiers that generalities will never be able to encompass. It just seems that women possess, in my opinion, more useful skills and biological advantages than men to produce higher quality modern (and in that case 40K) soldiers. Than, how come most women in the army are of average skills and how come elite soldiers are still systematically men?

Modern armies have inherited of a long tradition from our past. All of them from the Chinese, Russian, Israeli or British armies are all based on the same principles developed in western and central Europe at the turn of the century which themselves inherited their doctrines from western and central Europe of the 17th century which used a modified version of the 16th century armies of Northern Europe (especially Sweden) and the list goes on up to the Roman and Greek armies of antiquity. The only gap in military culture was during Middle-Ages were armies and war were not made of or by professional soldiers. All these armies were very successful and all of them were composed exclusively of men. It was a time before birth control when women had five jobs open to them and were executed, marginalised or rejected otherwise (prostitute, housewife, nurse, school teacher for kids and nuns). You will have to wait for the industrial revolution to see women work outside those fields and then again for a smaller salary and worst conditions. It was a sign of crippling poverty not economical freedom like in the 1950 and after.

Thus, the army evolved not to produce the best soldiers for a particular style of warfare but the best male soldiers for a particular brand of warfare. All the technics, strategy and organisation is designed to produce with ease and speed good male soldiers, but those technics are not ideal to produce with ease and speed good female soldiers.

In fact, in many cases, these technics are counterproductive. For example all these armies teach «hard martial arts» which aren’t adapted to most women physic and doesn’t take into account their greatest asset, but these martial arts certainly develop men greatest fighting quality (size and strength). But, it goes deeper than that. Because of our cultural heritage and social norms, men and women are raised differently and become different psychologically speaking too. Thus, the technics employed to promote teamwork are adapted to men psychological references and culture which are very different for women. Bravery is thought in close association with strength, size, sexual domination (in the large sense of the term not only the pejorative one) and aggressivity. This works wonder with men, but provoke the exact opposite amongst most women who would perceive this in a menacing, ridiculous or childish way in most cases unless they make a lot of mental gymnastics. The roots of bravery is psychologically imprinted in a different way by our culture in women who perceive it in association with the following theme: protection of loved ones, vengeance (also in the more palatable term of justice), sternness and freedom (especially sexual freedom which clashes with the concept of sexual domination heavily). Most men would perceive an indoctrination based on those principle as meek, pacifist or simply boring. Elite soldiers are trained in the same way than normal ones they just have «more of the good stuff». Thus elite male soldiers are trained in a way even more alien to most women and turn out as worst soldier than a hypothetical elite female soldier who would have been trained in an ancient and successful institution like the army which was tailored for her needs. If modern Earth will probably never produce very good female soldiers in the foreseeable future it’s because our military and connected social institutions have no real experience, plan or technics to train them. We also don’t have the need to adapt it at short terms for our planet is more peaceful than ever and will probably become even more peaceful in the following century. In the 40K setting thought, Cadians and other fortress worlds, where all energy is dedicated toward the training soldiers, would certainly have considered this seriously and almost scientifically. In a strange turning of the table, you could see men handeling logistic and the nursing of children and women fighting.

The «best modern soldier» is not a 190 centimeters men with large shoulders, short and muscle legs, square jaw, shaved head and large powerful hands. It’s much more likely a 165 centimeters women with slim and very fit features with unnaturally good eyesight and whatever haircut she can fit in a helmet. Yet the very most important element to produce good soldiers is not its physical or psychological natural features or advantages. It’s by a landslide the quality of its training. The perfect soldier is the one that has been perfectly trained and he doesn’t care about sex, culture or ethnicity.

PS: if tall, strong and brave were the true measure of soldiers. The imperium would have used black men from south and central Africa who are stronger and taller than all other ethnic groups and you would see a lot more representation of black people in 40K. Games-Workshop authors aren’t military historian, philosopher or soldiers and they don’t need to be. They use «common sense» like everybody else on subject they never studied even if it makes them wrong a lot of time. They draw, write and picture what they know and what seems to make the more sense to them aand first and foremost what they like.

PPS: for all those talsking of the necessity of women to raise babies and infants. You need to learn of the wonder of modern technologies like maternised milk (just like mommy's milk but artificial and just has good if not better in many cases), baby carriers, baby bottle, tugging blankets (to simulate a lovely embrace), incubators, cribs and much much more!!!! It all needs to go!!! Call in the next five minutes and receive a milkshake!!!!

You mistake what common sense is. Common sense is not believing the world is flat because someone told you the world is flat. Common sense is applying logic to the horizon. Horizon is curved so the earth should be round. This is common sense. Another way of saying rational thought. Rational isn't always correct but it will find it is incorrect through rational thought itself. IMO it is common sense...rational...logical...that men make better soldiers than women...Your argument is very weak - all of your points are false or irrelevant.

" In a strange turning of the table, you could see men handling logistic and the nursing of children and women fighting."
lol - why cause men are better at math?

1) Women have a better balance and flexibility than men? This is your number 1 and it's wrong? Wow - bad way to start. I'll give you better "base" flexibility but balance? Men and women have equal balancing potential. Men can also match females in flexibility - we have the same bones and tendons. see - male gymnasts.
2) Women are smaller and thinner than men....Smaller on average yes...thinner? Nope. Weaker per pound yes.
3) Women have sharper senses than men...Sharper senses? Again false.
4) Women are more resilient to pain both physical and mental...Physical pain resistance? Thats a myth to make woman feel better about child birth - have you watched a rugby or an american football game? Dudes take hits and get right back up - no crying. Ever seen a dude take a 99 mph fastball and his casually walk to his base? Girls actually cry when getting hit with a softball...This is basically a bogus saying thats been around for a long time and everyone knows it's false....Mental? You've got to be joking. I wont even go into this one...it's just obvious that men have stronger mental fortitude.
5) Women have a higher capacity for sustained attention. This is borderline. Woman have better language skills and process language better than men. Still irrelevant as men are capable of paying attention lol.
6) Women can multitask more easily. This is TRUE you finally got one right - better left right brain connectivity. However - multi-tasking can be trained into any man - Why are all profession RTS game players all male? Is it because they can't multitask? Then again - do you really want your solider to be multi tasking? Or do you want them to rapid fire lazguns into the enemy and focus on nothing else?
7) Women form bonds faster than men. Even if I give you this as true - you have to accept that woman more easily hold grudges and therefore are worse with brotherhood.

"PS: if tall, strong and brave were the true measure of soldiers. The imperium would have used black men from south and central Africa who are stronger and taller than all other ethnic groups and you would see a lot more representation of black people in 40K. Games-Workshop authors aren’t military historian, philosopher or soldiers and they don’t need to be. They use «common sense» like everybody else on subject they never studied even if it makes them wrong a lot of time. They draw, write and picture what they know and what seems to make the more sense to them aand first and foremost what they like."

Look at the Olympics? Is it dominated by African males? Certain events are but each region has pretty good representation in the events they excel at. Something you never see is an argument that the Olympics should have men and woman competing against each other...because women wouldn't stand a chance.

Heres the 2 main factors that make men better solider than women esp in a military society that needs to reproduce soldiers.
1.) Stronger. Can carry more ammunition. Use bigger weapons. Present greater threat in melee combat.
^^^^This would really be enough but there is more.
2.) Losses in battle do no reduce potential soldier reproduction. 1 male can impregnate thousands of females but total # of breeding females is the most important factor for creating a steady stream of soldiers.
Could keep going but it would really just be a list of things men do better because they are bigger and stronger. All totally relevant stuff though.

Anyways. I detect a lot of male loathing going on here and it's infecting a lot of your opinions. The argument is not that women should be baby factories - it's that women WOULD be baby factories in a totalitarian military culture. I think it's great that we both live in free societies where people men and women can do whatever they want! You can even go join the army (you will have easier training criteria to make it fair though.)

**Psienesis**

Anyways. I detect a lot of male loathing going on here and it's infecting a lot of your opinions. The argument is not that women should be baby factories - it's that women WOULD be baby factories in a totalitarian military culture. I think it's great that we both live in free societies where people men and women can do whatever they want! You can even go join the army (you will have easier training criteria to make it fair though.)

Not when technology exists to remove the need for an actual parent. The Imperium does not consider "what problems will this cause next month?", it considers "what problems does this solve right now?".

Historically speaking, there's been women in combat since Mankind existed as a genetic strain separate from apes.

Why are all profession RTS game players all male?

Well, one, they aren't... the reason they're predominantly male is because video gaming culture has quite a terrible problem with misogyny.

... but basically your post is mostly an MRA advertisement.

**Lord Castellan**

Never mind.

**epronovost**

In this post I want to point out I was talking about generality and average. I will keep doing it in this one. Men can reach very high level of excellence in all those characteristics either because of extensive training or great genetics, but I am always, ALWAYS talking about an average in a group of population. If not, I could say that the strongest person on Earth will soon be a 11 years old or so little girl who has a mutation that allow her to possess a muscle mass seven times superior to normal human (it’s a well-known mutation amongst cows and dogs but very rare amongst human). She looks like a mini culturist. It’s so funny, but strange! I must also point out, that you have not presented me any proof that my assertion were false or that your's are true, but only your judgement and some anecdotal experience which proves none of my point wrong (If my girlfriend can lift twice more than you it doesn’t make women stronger than men).

1) The root of balance and flexibility disparity amongst men and women is based on the specific region of their balance center. Both men and women balance center is about 6 centimeters bellow the navel. Men have higher muscle mass on their torso and heavier bones in the shoulder area and smaller ass which unbalance them (many men especially very muscular men have a kind of pyramidal shape because men gain faster mass on their torso). Women shoulders and hips are almost always nearly the same size which makes them much more easily balanced because of the weight repartition of their body. It’s a simple biomechanics and physic fact. Their breast weight is also well balanced by a more pronounce spine arch and bigger ass which also gives them a good balance in all direction compared to men (who are much more balanced when it comes to forward backward compare to left to right movements). Their pelvis is larger which lead to larger thigh tendons who allow larger movement of the legs (for example, higher kicks). Their ankles tendon are also longer on average (except for supermodels who wear so much high heel shoes that their tendon become atrophied over time) which allow for more movement of their foot. Those two last points leads to their capacity to make more compensatory micro-movement to keep their balance. Their smaller size also keep them closer to the ground thus more stable and their inferior weight makes falling less dangerous. The internal ear working (the balance center) is identical in men and women. This is why women have natural balance skill than men. It takes them less training to become expert in that field and a much higher proportion of their population has natural disposition to become acrobats of that sort (just like men have more natural disposition to be very, very strong). I will also point out that most contortionists, the masters of balance and flexibility are women. Flexibility and balance are closely linked in human anatomy. If you accept the argument of men being stronger, I am sorry to tell you that the evidences of women being more flexible and have more balance are has compelling and based on the same science. I would also question you about your knowledge of combat theory and martial practice for you have not addressed that fundamental portion of my argument.

2) You are right on this one, but I meant thinner in the sense of not as wide not as less fat (it was a poor choice of word from my part. Please bear with me, this is not my first language). Men have larger shoulder bone structure and bigger rib cages. It makes them a bigger and easier target, more noisy and visible and less capable of finding cover in a battle. My point still stand and you can’t really deny it seriously I think.

3) They do. They 33% better sense of smell (useful for detecting toxic gas, oil leak, perfume and diseased body odor), 18% keener ears (useful for detecting ambushes, patrols and other movement), 11% better eyesight and a unique mutation that enhance that specific ability (albeit very rare). They even have better taste (but that’s not very relevant). Just make a little research on any scientific encyclopedia online and you will find those results (numbers may vary but they all show the same tendency). You can even find some of it by a simple google search with the following question: «Do women have better senses than men? »

4) The women resistance to pain is a very well-known and documented fact. The most common test employed to demonstrate it is to place men and women alone in a room with a small device that will send progressively more painful electrical shock to the fingertips of the subject (I made it, I sucked by the way). The subject are told to remove their finger of the device when it start to hurt (if they recoiled in a non-volunteer movement, the test stops). On average men, removed their hand at around the 82nd electrical shock, women at around the 110th. Thus, men are less resistant to pain than women. Even the Mythbuster show made that test with similar results, but used frigid water instead of the shock device. But, the original test doesn’t stop there. It was made again with two persons of the same sex facing each other. In that test, men results augmented to the level of the women and women numbers were similar to the first one. A third test was made with men facing women. In it, men result reached the mark of 125th electrical shock and the women about 80th. Conclusion, in a neutral setting, women are much more resistant to pain than men, but social conditioning makes men fake being tougher to augment their chance at seducing women who themselves fake being weaker to attract more men. Have you noticed that most of the posture and facial expression of women deemed attractive by men are identical to those they use to show mild pain, distress and great weakness? Have you seen girls playing rugby or water polo? They tank those hits like pros.

Men have a much higher numbers of depression (mild to severe), a much higher level of use of distress hot-line, a much higher level of antisocial behavior, a much higher level of medication for mental disorder a higher level of mental disorder disease like OCD or phobia (vertigo being the most common followed by spiders, rats, snake and dogs), higher proportion of PTSD than women in similar conditions, lower level of practice of stress reliving practices like Yoga and that’s not counting the suicide failed or not. Men mental illness numbers and problem are a major concern for all health organisation of first world countries (second and third world country don’t keep statistics on these phenomenon). This of course as most if not all its roots in social upbringing of men who have the strong tendency of denying any mental weakness instead of tackling them and expressing them like women do. Many of us denied themselves the most powerful tool to develop great mental strength (friends, family, social circles) because of misplaced pride and attempt to deceive ourselves and other to our own strength. In the future this will probably change, but as of now it is a major problem and a weakness. Our lower level of hormones linked to attachment (except when we are in presence of pregnant women and infants) is the only natural weakness we got when it comes to mental resilience for mental resilience is completely linked to our social connection ability. This also explain why women are so resistant to torture.

5) Of course men can pay attention for long period of time. I am actually very good at that. Men are simply weaker on average by about 20 to 30% (just like strength of women vs strength of men). This is one (but only one of many) of the reasons why women are bit better at school than men on average. It has nothing to do with language skill it has a link to multi-tasking in fact.

6) I am not surprised that you agree with this one despite the fact that it’s the one with the least backing in the scientific community. It’s a common prejudice. Of course it can be trained into man. It’s just longer and harder than training it in women (and they reach a higher level of mastery of this particular skill). In the same fashion I would tell you that you can train women to become incredibly strong it’s just much harder and longer than men (that’s why many women are much stronger than most man). RTS gamers are mostly males because most gamers who like war games are men (it’s also false for there is many professional paid female war gamers like Sasha 'Scarlett' Hostyn who won 3 tournaments of Starcraft II last year). This argument is the crown example of confirmation bias. It draw a conclusion favorable to you without considering data and other detail like gender representation or if RTS even require multi-tasking (not that much in my opinion). To answer your second question, yes soldier need to fire their lasgun while paying attention to enemy and friendly movement, listen to orders, devise tactics and navigate rough terrain. So yes, being multi-tasking is a great advantage.

7) We also agree on this one, but like I said in my point. The advantages outweigh the risks. But they are very bad at brotherhood their thing is more like sisterhood. Lol.
Your point about the Olympics wasn’t very pertinent to the conversation above. Neither was my point to begin with. That’s why it was a post-scriptum.

In resume, all my point still stands, you have not disproven any of my claims and allowed me to explain why mine make sense. I would also note that you seem to have very little knowledge of the natural characteristic of human and even less when it comes to social conditioning vs natural impulse. You also ignore non-traditional approach to combat which may be more efficient (or as efficient) then the most commonly used ones, and characteristics of modern armies. Your knowledge of military history seems to be lacking too and you don’t take into account modern or potential future technology in a fictional setting like 40K which is a major problem. In fact I would suppose that you would disconnect quickly out of any fiction of dystopian future in which you would have the short end of the stick. For example, all men are sperm bank and servile worker and women fighters, leaders and doctors. Which is also very possible for Cadia since the best way to ensure a next generation is artificial reproduction no the natural one. I don’t loath men. I am a men. I am just aware of our weakness and accept them with our strengths. You can see all my quotes from the very same post that claim men and women equality and respect of both gender while you openly declare women weak without proof and mock them when taking about 4. And, to top it all, you asume that I am a women to defend such concept which I find a tad bit insulting for it seems to me that this an attempt to distanciate you from me and better reject my argument ad hominem.

**Melissia**

Psienesis wrote:
Historically speaking, there's been women in combat since Mankind existed as a genetic strain separate from apes.

Mhm. Including in war.

Including as basic grunts. Lynata actually found some historical documents showing rosters with females in them for medieval wars.

Not that anyone seems to pay any attention to them, after all, it doesn't fit in to their "convenient" ideas about gender, I guess.

**Stonebeard**

Well, this has gone from a simple question about the demographics of the 40k universe to an asinine, and fundamentally meaningless, discussion on which sex makes a better soldier (wonderfully specific), with gross oversimplifications being made by both sides and neither proving (likely) anything to the other. Slow clap now or later?

That being said, while the number of Africans, Asians and South Americans, (everything but Caucasian) is odd, I find it even stranger that, in the far future, everyone is fraking British.

**Veteran Sergeant**

This started with an asinine troll post by an OP who claims to have not played the game but has almost 70% of his posts in either "Porposed Rules" or "Tactics" subforums.

So I think it's somewhat disingenuous to suggest that it's devolved from there, lol. It's simply diverged to a different nonsensical social justice discussion as the Internet is wont to do in this day and age.

**Beaviz81**

I heard about the women Melissia were referring to. They were supposed to go as the bodyguard of an English queen. But they weren't allowed in the end. The source is Terry Jones.

**Iron_Captain**

This thread is about black people in 40k. Could we please leave the women out of this? Unless they are black they have nothing to do with this discussion.
If you want to talk about Cadian women so much, please make a different thread.

Stonebeard wrote:
That being said, while the number of Africans, Asians and South Americans, (everything but Caucasian) is odd, I find it even stranger that, in the far future, everyone is fraking British.

That is because the creators are British. Just like how in American fiction everyone is usually American.

**EngulfedObject**

Can we just let this thread die? There's no point discussing it further. It's already been said; the creators are pasty white dudes from Nottingham. End of story. They can do whatever they like with the setting, not everything has to be all-inclusive. And why focus on black people in particular? What about the all the different groups in Asia? Asia still has the most people on Earth last I counted. Maybe everyone else died out during the Age of Strife, who knows? Think Attack on Titan, a Japanese anime where everyone's white except for one half-Asian left in the whole world. Big deal!

Edit: And yes, I realize the White Scars exist. Okay, where the South Asians at? There's more than a billion of them now, surely 40,000 years in the future they'll outnumber all the white dudes right? Seriously, this thread is stupid.

**Melissia**

Beaviz81 wrote:
I heard about the women Melissia were referring to. They were supposed to go as the bodyguard of an English queen.

No they weren't. They were standard grunts, listed alongside the men. You're making gak up, as usual.

**CREEEEEEEEED**

You have already said they are weaker in a few of your points, epronovost.
"They 33% better sense of smell (useful for detecting toxic gas, oil leak, perfume and diseased body odor), 18% keener ears (useful for detecting ambushes, patrols and other movement), 11% better eyesight." Yeah, cool, that's gonna' help when most humans don't know how to use smell and ears properly, and contact lenses exist.
"Have you seen girls playing rugby or water polo? They tank those hits like pros. " Yeah, from other women, would you honestly expect them to beat a male team at contact sport, really?
"Women form bonds faster than men" Yep, ever heard of or more likely observed women having massive break-up fights, and holding the grudge?
Sorry, I don't want to generalize women and I know its wrong, but have you actually observed women? It is hugely likely that social conditioning has something to do with it, but it still is the case that if you just get a group of women and men, give them a gun and three weeks of training, tell them to kill each other, and watch, it is likely that the men would kill the women in a savage butchery while the women try and force themselves to pull the trigger.
(Yes, gender stereotyping, bad, but all stereotypes have that grain of truth that starts them)
Also, why would greater muscle and bone mass be bad in a combat situation, "Yay, I have less resistance to everything, wooo!" also, most fights aren't just in the open with wide spaces to jump about in and doge strong close combat attacks, due to the nature of modern combat being often fought in urban areas, where you can sneak round buildings and deliver one strong blow from the back (here comes that extra muscle), and why would average women or men be good at dodging anyway?
"All these armies were very successful and all of them were composed exclusively of men." Woop de gaking doo!

But in 40k you've gotta find guardsmen/women somewhere, and Victoria's sculpts are awesome.

**CREEEEEEEEED**

Oh yeah, and this 4 de lolz

**Wyzilla**

CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
You have already said they are weaker in a few of your points, epronovost.
"They 33% better sense of smell (useful for detecting toxic gas, oil leak, perfume and diseased body odor), 18% keener ears (useful for detecting ambushes, patrols and other movement), 11% better eyesight." Yeah, cool, that's gonna' help when most humans don't know how to use smell and ears properly, and contact lenses exist.
"Have you seen girls playing rugby or water polo? They tank those hits like pros. " Yeah, from other women, would you honestly expect them to beat a male team at contact sport, really?
"Women form bonds faster than men" Yep, ever heard of or more likely observed women having massive break-up fights, and holding the grudge?
Sorry, I don't want to generalize women and I know its wrong, but have you actually observed women? It is hugely likely that social conditioning has something to do with it, but it still is the case that if you just get a group of women and men, give them a gun and three weeks of training, tell them to kill each other, and watch, it is likely that the men would kill the women in a savage butchery while the women try and force themselves to pull the trigger.
(Yes, gender stereotyping, bad, but all stereotypes have that grain of truth that starts them)
Also, why would greater muscle and bone mass be bad in a combat situation, "Yay, I have less resistance to everything, wooo!" also, most fights aren't just in the open with wide spaces to jump about in and doge strong close combat attacks, due to the nature of modern combat being often fought in urban areas, where you can sneak round buildings and deliver one strong blow from the back (here comes that extra muscle), and why would average women or men be good at dodging anyway?
"All these armies were very successful and all of them were composed exclusively of men." Woop de gaking doo!

But in 40k you've gotta find guardsmen/women somewhere, and Victoria's sculpts are awesome.

It's called the enter button. Use it.

**Khonsu**

Can you please stop the Male-Female debate?

**dusara217**

Melissia wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Using women in combat - especially in a world like the 40k universe where millions die in groves is totally not in humanities interest.
There is a person there. There is a spare lasgun. Give said lasgun to said person, tell them to fire it at the enemy on pain of death. Doesn't matter whether or not the person has a penis or a vagina. It matters that they're firing the fething lasgun at the fething enemy.

Xenomancers wrote:
That's just common sense.
"Common sense" has always been the excuse of people who assert nonsense, see also:

Xenomancers wrote:
Not to mention the fact that men just make better soldiers anyways. Stronger, faster, easier to strip individualism, stronger mental fortitude.
People are individuals, not stereotypes. I'm stronger than most of the people on this forum. Also more physically fit, too. Grab the average player out of a GW store and I would likely beat them in almost any physical contest. Hell, most people here couldn't even do one chin-up.

"But Melissia!" I hear you say, "Cadian men wouldn't be like that!" But neither would Cadian women be like the average American woman. Don't forget that women in modern society are constantly pushed AWAY from physical exercise. Mocked for having muscles ("only a dyke would be that strong", for example). Cadian women have raised since birth as soldiers; to the point where the legend goes that Cadians are taught how to aim a lasgun before they're taught how to walk. Even though training doesn't officially begin until 14, they are in a culture that values military prowess more than anything. The average Cadian girl isn't playing with dolls, they're playing with a "build your own lasgun" kit and target shooting. Rather than playing "house" or "doctor", they're playing "Orks and Guardsmen" or "Leman Russ Crew".

And then they officially join the Cadian military, and are instilled with training and discipline to combat the foul minions of Chaos and the horrors of the Warp.

I know this was said more than a week ago, but it still just so WRONG that I cannot even begin to express myself right...

Ok, now, first of all: I don't know what society you live in, but where I come from, women are encouraged to work and be physically fit, in order to remain thin, hot and attractive. Kind of sexist, I know, but the women are the ones who think that way, when all they have to do is eat less chocolate after break-ups

sorry I couldn't resist that.

Second of all: In a setting like 40k, where war is dominance and men are the predominant warriors, men have at least 45k years of evolution working their way. This means that they're faster, stronger, more aggressive, with simpler minds (which means easier to brainwash), more likely to follow orders without questions, not to mention larger. aka the perfect grunt. Women simply don't have the tens and tens of thousands of years of evolution working their way like men do. While there will always be competent woman-warriors, the vast majority of women would not make the best warriors and would be put to better use as support personnel. There would also be men put to best use as support personnel, but this is 40k we're talking about here. Those kinds of men would have died during training. While women would also be used as soldiers, it is so OBVIOUS that men as a general population would make FAR better warriors.

Also, after reading the debate so far, I have concluded that women would make better assassins and (in most cases) Special Forces. But I still think that men make better Shock Troops and Grunts (hence the male-only Astartes). Also, why are women arguing for women to be the grunts? That's asinine, why don't your argue that women would make better commanders? That's actually something I believe. It's too bad women are almost always completely uninterested in war. I actually wrote a small novella about a species I completely made up where the dominant Empire was dominant because of female leadership. I'm starting to ramble, aren't I? I'm too damn tired...

Also, always remember: This is 40k we're talking about here; why would they EVER use the most efficient system?

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

dusara217 wrote:
Ok, now, first of all: I don't know what society you live in, but where I come from, women are encouraged to work and be physically fit, in order to remain thin, hot and attractive.

Women are encouraged to be thin, not muscled.

dusara217 wrote:
Women simply don't have the tens and tens of thousands of years of evolution working their way like men do.

Out of those 40 000 years, 39800 are fictional, with 2015 to 30000 being undisclosed (as in, maybe most of those years saw a matriarchal society where only women were soldiers), and 30 000 to 40 000 has men AND women fighting. Your bias in showing.

**CREEEEEEEEED**

Oxayotl, I looked at that link, and I have arms just like that, except I'm 14 and I have never been to a gym, and do little exercise when I'm not actually playing in a game of sport.

**Ashiraya**

Natural variety. My brother was thin as a stick at age 14, and still is.

**dusara217**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
dusara217 wrote:
Ok, now, first of all: I don't know what society you live in, but where I come from, women are encouraged to work and be physically fit, in order to remain thin, hot and attractive.

Women are encouraged to be thin, not muscled.

dusara217 wrote:
Women simply don't have the tens and tens of thousands of years of evolution working their way like men do.

Out of those 40 000 years, 39800 are fictional, with 2015 to 30000 being undisclosed (as in, maybe most of those years saw a matriarchal society where only women were soldiers), and 30 000 to 40 000 has men AND women fighting. Your bias in showing.

1.) That's true; heavily muscled women is just disgusting and unattractive in my mind, along with the vast majority of mens' minds. Primarily because men feel a need to dominate and softer women are easier to dominate. Honestly, though, muscly women just seem repulsive to me.

2.)I don't know what year you live, but where I come from we're not long in the Middle Ages and we're in the third millenium. Aka 21st Century. Which means c. 38k years of unexplored history

3.) There have been (historically) matriarchal societies, undoubtedly. (though the only ones I've heard of have been the Amazonas in South America). But, you still have the way that people are talking and the position that women hold in ANY of the 40k books where they're even featured at all, outside of SoB. Women hold the same value as men in 40k in CIVILIAN life, but male warriors still far outnumber the female ones. The fact of the matter is, men have been evolving to be the better warriors for thousands of years already, and that trend ain't gonna end any time soon. If there were matriarchal societies, they would be the exception; not the rule.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ashiraya wrote:
Natural variety. My brother was thin as a stick at age 14, and still is.

And this. there will always be natural variety, and there will always be some females who make great soldiers and some males who make poor soldiers.

**Bronzefists42**

I think we need a mod in here. We've completely derailed the thread.

**CREEEEEEEEED**

In terms of what dusara217 is saying about evolution, it may be hard to understand. I think it means, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it is not genetics, but culture that has advanced male minds and bodies to be better warriors.
Take a stone age tribe of 100 men and one woman. now another with 1 man and 100 women. The tribe with 100 men would die out, whereas with the other tribe, there are plenty of women who can all have children.
So if we then take a third tribe with 100 of each sex, then if there is some dangerous situation, the men are the obvious candidates, since they are not needed in as large numbers.
Obviously, being descended from apes, the men are already larger and have a more vicious mindset. Then move on tens of thousands of years, and the role has become permanently engrained into the men and women as men being the doing ones who can get killed, and women being the ones who must be protected. This is the cause for women and children onto the lifeboats first sorts of things.
Anyway, I may be wrong.